GINK | Gristhttp://grist.org
A nonprofit news org for people who want a planet that doesn’t burn and a future that doesn’t suck.Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:08:16 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/330e84b0272aae748d059cd70e3f8f8d?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngGINK | Gristhttp://grist.org
This plugin keeps baby pics off your Facebook by replacing them with bacon or catshttp://grist.org/living/this-plugin-keeps-baby-pics-off-your-facebook-by-replacing-them-with-bacon-or-cats/
Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:58:06 +0000http://grist.org/?p=121100]]>

Are you childfree, anti-population-growth, or just an STFU Parents fan? Unbaby.me will get rugrats off your social media feeds for good, and replace them with pictures of kittens, puppies, bacon, swimsuit models, or whatever you want.

Here’s how it works: The Chrome extension has an editable list of keywords that usually herald a precious, sticky little face in the vicinity. The preloaded keyword list is:

but you can add whatever you want. The creators recommend dropping in the names of the biggest offenders among your Facebook friends. Then you can set it up with your favorite image feeds, or just use the default feed of cat photos from Instagram. It works best with big images, but otherwise, you can basically unbaby with whatever you find on the internet — puppies, food porn, Avengers fanart. You could even just do Goatse over and over, I don’t know your life. Then hit “save,” and voila: Tot-blocked.

My first thought was “so few of my friends have babies, and they’re usually so polite — I don’t need this!” But my second was “still, wouldn’t I rather look at pictures of puppies?” so I installed it just to see. Almost immediately, a grainy photo of a slightly menacing cat showed up in my Facebook feed with the message “Baby removed.”

I can only assume this cat sat on top of the baby and stole its breath.

I already subscribe to like three different feeds of puppy photos, and my friends really are exceptionally conscientious about baby photos (no pictures of poop blowouts or whatever), plus I actually think small humans are pretty cute, so I don’t plan to leave this extension turned on. But if you’re sick of your social media being covered in spit-up, or if looking at one more pair of chubby cheeks is going to make you scream, enjoy: This is by far the least controversial baby-removal technology you will ever see.

]]>unbabymeunbabymebaby_removedI am the population problemhttp://grist.org/population/2011-09-27-i-am-the-population-problem/
Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:39:04 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-09-27-i-am-the-population-problem/]]>Take a look in the mirror.Population growth tends to get blamed on other people: Africans and Asians who have “more kids than they can feed,” immigrants in our own country with their “large families,” even single mothers in the “inner city.”

But actually the population problem is all about me: white, middle-class, American me. Steer the blame right over here.

Well-meaning people have told me that I’m “just the sort of person who should have kids.” Au contraire. I’m just the sort of person who should not have kids.

Population isn’t just about counting heads. The impact of humanity on the environment is not determined solely by how many of us are around, but by how much stuff we use and how much room we take up. And as a financially comfortable American, I use a lot of stuff and take up a lot of room.

My carbon footprint is more than 200 times bigger than an average Ethiopian’s, and more than 12 times bigger than an average Indian’s, and twice as big as an average Brit’s.

When a poor woman in Uganda has another child — too often because she lacks access to family-planning services, economic opportunity, or self-determination — she might dampen her family’s prospects for climbing out of poverty or add to her community’s challenges in providing everyone with clean water and safe food, but she certainly isn’t placing a big burden on the global environment.

When someone like me has a child — watch out, world! Gear, gadgets, gewgaws, bigger house, bigger car, oil from the Mideast, coal from Colombia, coltan from the Congo, rare earths from China, pesticide-laden cotton from Egypt, genetically modified soy from Brazil. And then when that child has children, wash, rinse, and repeat (in hot water, of course). Without even trying, we Americans slurp up resources from every corner of the globe and then spit 99 percent of them back out again as pollution.

Conscientious people try to limit that consumption, of course. I’m one of them. I get around largely by bus and on foot, eat low on the food chain, buy used rather than new, keep the heat low, rein in my gadget lust. But even putting aside my remaining carbon sins (see: flying), the fact is that just by virtue of living in America, enjoying some small portion of its massive material infrastructure, my carbon footprint is at unsustainable levels.

Far and away the biggest contribution I can make to a cleaner environment is to not bring any mini-me’s into the world. A 2009 study by statisticians at Oregon State University found that the climate impact of having one fewer child in America is almost 20 times greater than the impact of adopting a series of eco-friendly practices for your entire lifetime, things like driving a high-mileage car, recycling, and using efficient appliances and CFLs.

Most people won’t make the same decision, of course, and I don’t fault them for that. Everyone has different circumstances and values, and environmental issues are not the only ones worth considering. I believe in choice, and that means supporting choices different from mine.

But it needs to become easier for people to make the same decision I have, if they are so inclined.

Here in the U.S., the Pill has been available for more than 50 years. It’s now almost universally accepted that women will use birth control to delay, space out, or limit childbearing. But there’s not so much acceptance for using birth control to completely skip childbearing. At some point, you’re expected to grow up, pair up, put the Pill off to the side, and produce a couple of kids. Deviate from this scenario and you’ll get weird looks and face awkward conversations with family members, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers.

One 30-something woman I know who works for a reproductive-health NGO says that her colleagues pester her about her decision not to have children, telling her she needs to get started on that family or she’ll regret it. And these are people whose careers are dedicated to making birth control and reproductive health care available to all women! Pro-natal bias runs deep.

Many women in the U.S. have found that it’s difficult if not impossible to find a doctor who will perform a tubal ligation if the woman has not already had children (and sometimes even if she has). Doctors warn that sterilization is an irreversible, life-altering decision. But having a child is an irreversible, life-altering decision and you don’t find doctors warning women away from that. The broadly held prejudice, in the medical profession and much of the rest of society, is that becoming a parent is the right and inevitable choice.

Over recent years and decades, it’s become more acceptable for mixed-race couples to have children, and single women, and gay couples, and women over the age of 40, and that’s all good. Acceptance has been slower to come for the decision not to have children. There’s now a fledgling childfree movement, but some who are part of it say they still feel like they’re violating a taboo.

Read more on population. Check out our series 7 Billion: What to expect when you're expandingReal reproductive freedom has to include social acceptance of the decision not to reproduce. When we achieve that, it will mean less pressure on women and men who don’t feel called to become parents. It will mean less of a stigma on people who may have wanted to become parents but didn’t get the chance. It will mean a wider array of options for people who haven’t decided yet. It will mean fewer children born to ambivalent or unhappy parents, getting us closer to the goal of “every child a wanted child.”

Finally, it will mean fewer Americans making a mess of the planet, and a little more breathing room for those of us who are already here or on the way.

I recognize that I am the population problem. I’m trying to be part of the solution. Let’s make it easier for others to join me.

]]>woman-mirror-180x150.jpgwoman looking in mirror7billion_carouselFeminist icon Gloria Steinem on climate change, population, & deep ecology [VIDEO]http://grist.org/population/2011-07-09-gloria-steinem-climate-change-population-deep-ecology-abc-news/
http://grist.org/population/2011-07-09-gloria-steinem-climate-change-population-deep-ecology-abc-news/#respondSat, 09 Jul 2011 16:36:14 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-07-09-gloria-steinem-climate-change-population-deep-ecology-abc-news/]]>Who knew feminist trailblazer Gloria Steinem was such a greenie? In an interview on ABC News’ “Nature’s Edge” a few months ago, she raised the alarm about climate change, talked about how climate is connected to women’s rights and population, and gave a basic lesson on ecofeminism and deep ecology (all while fielding insipid questions from the interviewer):

Quotable bits:

“The overpopulation is still the biggest reason for global warming, for all the pressure on the environment.”

“The truth is that global warming is a nuclear holocaust slowed down slightly.”

“The important thing, I think, about both ecofeminism, as a term, and deep ecology … is that we are part of nature, not separate.”

“There’s no concept of enough. There’s no concept of overdeveloped. We talk about underdeveloped; how come we never talk about overdeveloped? This country is overdeveloped. There’s no concept of enough money, of enough children, of balance.”

]]>http://grist.org/population/2011-07-09-gloria-steinem-climate-change-population-deep-ecology-abc-news/feed/0gloria-steinem-abc.jpgBetty White is greener than you (and a GINK role model too)http://grist.org/living/2011-05-20-betty-white-is-greener-than-you-and-a-gink-role-model-too/
http://grist.org/living/2011-05-20-betty-white-is-greener-than-you-and-a-gink-role-model-too/#respondSat, 21 May 2011 01:47:22 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-05-20-betty-white-is-greener-than-you-and-a-gink-role-model-too/]]>Betty White, honorary forest ranger and ardent environmentalist.Photo: USDAWhite is the new green!

Did you know that the octogenarian actress is a longtime environmentalist? She’s starring in a new campaign for The Wilderness Society: “Keep it wild with Betty White!” “Wilderness is harder and harder to find these days on this beautiful planet, and we’re abusing our planet to the point of almost no return,” White said last year when she was made an honorary forest ranger.

White even has an eco-crush on Robert Redford. “Aside from just thinking he’s wonderful, I just love his love of nature. His films are great, but his environmental work just knocks me out,” she gushes.

Barbara Walters once asked me if I ever had desired to have a child. The answer is, I never did think about it. … I didn’t think I could do justice to both career and motherhood … It’s such an individual choice.

Like so many other childfree people, she’s caught flack for this. In an interview earlier this month on public radio station WNYC, host Leonard Lopate hassled White for her decision, pointing out that plenty of other women have successfully balanced careers and parenthood:

Lopate: You’ve never had children and you write that you’re not a big believer in being able to do both — having a career and being a mother.

White: But I meant I know a lot of girls who do that very successfully. I know myself too well that I’m so compulsive I would not to justice to them.

Lopate: Because there are a number of people who’ve talked about achieving that balance: Michelle Obama, Meredith Viera, Tina Fey —

White: Meryl Streep.

Lopate: They’ve been able to pull it off. …

White: Yes, but that’s, that’s — they know themselves well enough to know they can accomplish it. I know myself well enough to know I would feel guilt about neglecting the children every time I’d go to work.

Lopate: So the career wound up taking precedence —

White: And I’ve never regretted it.

…

Lopate: Our next guest had four kids of her own and then adopted five kids, and she’s been a successful journalist —

White: She feels about kids the way I feel about animals.

For crap sake, Leonard, let the woman be!

White, gracious under pressure, made it clear that she’s not judging anyone else’s decision — just talking about the decision that was right for her.

Green inclinations + no kids — that would make Betty White a GINK. Add in her charm, zest, and nonjudgmental attitude, and you’ve got a model GINK.

]]>http://grist.org/living/2011-05-20-betty-white-is-greener-than-you-and-a-gink-role-model-too/feed/0betty-white-flickr-usda-380x310.jpgBetty with a teddyDo you know how many people are in the world today? [VIDEO]http://grist.org/population/2011-05-07-do-you-know-how-many-people-are-in-world-today-population-video/
http://grist.org/population/2011-05-07-do-you-know-how-many-people-are-in-world-today-population-video/#respondSat, 07 May 2011 20:26:54 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-05-07-do-you-know-how-many-people-are-in-world-today-population-video/]]>Does the average American have any idea what the global population is? Watch and see:

As Population Action International explains in this video, the world population will hit 7 billion this fall — on Oct. 31, to be specific. At least that’s the date the U.N. has specified, maybe because it’s scary — mwah-hah-hah. But seriously, the U.N.’s latest population projectionsare scary. Many demographers have been projecting that human numbers will stabilize at about 9 billion in 2050, but the U.N.’s new, more realistic analysis says the population could in fact keep on growing and hit 10.1 billion by 2100. That’s in part because there are still 215 million women around the world who want to avoid or delay pregnancy but don’t have good access to effective birth control, and the U.N. seems to have grown more pessimistic about remedying that situation any time soon.

While milestones like 7 billion focus the mind, big numbers don’t begin to tell the whole story. When women in developing countries aren’t able to limit the size of their families, they have worse prospects for climbing out of poverty and their local environments suffer (water shortages, degraded land, depleted wildlife, etc.). But it’s those of us wealthy Westerners who are causing environmental problems on a global scale (read: climate change) and who can make the most difference by having fewer (or no) kids. One woman in this video, at 1:25, is responding in the GINK fashion: When asked how the rising population will affect her, she says, “I feel like I actually don’t want to have children because of that issue.” Woman in pink jacket, welcome to the GINK (green inclinations, no kids) club.

This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

]]>http://grist.org/population/2011-05-07-do-you-know-how-many-people-are-in-world-today-population-video/feed/0grimace_631.jpgIs coming out as childfree like coming out as gay?http://grist.org/childfree/2011-04-07-is-coming-out-as-childfree-like-coming-out-as-gay/
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:22:22 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-04-07-is-coming-out-as-childfree-like-coming-out-as-gay/]]>As I’ve talked to and read about people coming to terms with their decisions not to have kids, the comparison has come up over and over.

“My friends and I have occasionally likened coming out as childfree to coming out as a gay person 40 or 50 years ago. There’s the same sense of shock — perhaps that’s too strong a word. But it’s a lifestyle people don’t expect and it may challenge their world view.”
— Rhona Sweeting, quoted in a BBC News article on the childfree

“I’m coming out of the closet. I’m sick of apologizing for my lifestyle which feels totally organic and right to me.”
— Jane, commenter on Childfree Life forum

At first the comparison struck me as ridiculous. Prejudice against the childfree is wholly different in kind and degree from prejudice against the LGBT population. Childfree people aren’t ejected from the military or denied housing or barred from marriage. The biggest threat of violence we might face is a peeved parent tempted to bonk us on the head with a diaper bag when we ramble on too long about a relaxing weekend getaway.

But acknowledging all that, still there is something to the idea of “coming out” as childfree. While some childfree people have no problem just putting it out there, many of us aren’t sure how to talk to some of the people in our lives about our choice not to have kids — whether it’s parents eager for grandchildren, siblings engrossed in parenthood, friends struggling with fertility issues, curious colleagues, or complete strangers. Saying “I’ve decided not to have kids” can feel like walking into a minefield. And not saying it can feel like concealing an important part of who we are.

I consulted a few coming-out guides to see if any struck a chord, and they certainly did. “Mom, Dad — believe me, it’s not a phase. I’ve known it for a long time.”

From birth, most of us are raised to think of ourselves as fitting into a certain mold. Our culture and our families teach us that we are “supposed” to [become parents] …

Once we do come out, most of us find that it feels far better to be open and honest than to conceal such an integral part of ourselves. We also come to recognize that our personal decision to live openly helps break down barriers and stereotypes that have kept others in the closet. And in doing so, we make it easier for others to follow our example.

Coming out to your family may be the hardest thing for you to do in your coming out process. Your parents most likely raised you assuming that you would [become a parent yourself]. … When parents first learn of a child’s [decision to be childfree] they often feel a loss.

Yep, yep — with you on all that. But wait — there’s no bastardizing that can make this next sentence relevant:

It generally takes some time for [parents] to realize that they haven’t lost anything and that things like marriage and children are all still possible.

D’oh. Coming out as gay or lesbian might hit your parents hard at first, but at least you can still give them grandkids!

This points to a strange twist: While LGBT people face more vehement and vicious prejudice than the childfree, they can, if they choose, ultimately lead more conventional lives. Their families won’t look like the Cleavers, but they can have what many people would at least recognize as a family, following the traditional parent-with-child pattern. We childfree people, in contrast, are messing with the notion of family in a way that’s perhaps even more fundamental.

Maybe that’s why gays actually seem to be further along in gaining social acceptance than the childfree. In my urban milieu, no one skips a beat or lifts an eyebrow if you say you’re gay, but people do often frown or avert their eyes or awkwardly change the subject if you say you’ve decided not to have kids — if they don’t tell you what you’re missing and try to get you to change your mind.

Take, as a pop-cultural example, the Sex and the City 2 movie. Carrie Bradshaw and the gang are having a gay old time at Stanford and Anthony’s big, fat, same-sex wedding when a woman starts interrogating Carrie and hubbie Mr. Big about when they’re going to have kids. “It’s just not for us,” Carrie responds. “So it’s just going to be the two of you?” she asks, voice dripping with pity and disdain. Flamboyant gay lifestyle: A-OK. Heterosexual couple deciding to forego parenting: deviant.

We don’t face all the same challenges, but we childfree could certainly use some advice from our LGBT friends on how to claim our rightful place in society. Whether you’re LGBT or childfree or both, please share coming-out tips below in comments. Also, LGBT folks, do you feel this same pressure to have children?

]]>bursting180x150.jpgwoman and man coming out through a wallGINK-strollerFamily values for population hawks: adopting a foster childhttp://grist.org/family/2011-02-20-family-values-for-population-hawks-adopting-or-fostering-a-child/
http://grist.org/family/2011-02-20-family-values-for-population-hawks-adopting-or-fostering-a-child/#respondMon, 21 Feb 2011 22:27:31 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-20-family-values-for-population-hawks-adopting-or-fostering-a-child/]]>Photo: jrodmanjrLast month, Lisa Hymas posted a list of eight things all of us can do about population. It was a great roundup (my favorite was No. 4), but I’d like to add an item:

If you really want to be a parent — that is, if you’d like to help guide and shape and unconditionally love another human being, and you’re OK with sleepless nights, no time for novels, and very little alone time with your partner — consider adopting.

I have nothing but respect for my GINK brothers and sisters. I think it’s important to say (out lout and often) that it’s OK to choose not to have kids. Not only is it OK (and, if I’m remembering correctly, a heck of a lot of fun) to be childfree, it’s also good for the planet in a lot of ways. Plus, you can get more done at work.

Certainly, as Lisa has mentioned in previous articles, there are ways to be part of a child’s life without the responsibility and full-time commitment of parenting. But the thing is, a lot of people — let’s call them GIWKs, as in green inclinations, want kids — would actually find that responsibility and full-time commitment fulfilling. The other thing is, caring about the future of the planet, and specifically, about controlling human population, doesn’t automatically preclude parenting.

Right now, there are almost half a million children in foster care in the United States. Slightly less than a quarter of them are legally available for adoption. If each one of those children was adopted by a GIWK (not sure of just how to pronounce that) on the fence about procreating, we’d make a pretty decent dent in that problem — and in a lot of others.

Last year, almost 30,000 children turned 18 and “aged out” of the foster care system without ever having found an adoptive family. Most of these young people found themselves homeless and jobless and turned to crime at rates significantly higher than their peers. From The Christian Science Monitor:

The vast majority of young people who age out of the foster-care system struggle to find housing and jobs and to complete their education, according to a new study released Wednesday, which tracked hundreds of foster-care youths from age 17 and 18 through age 23 or 24.

Among some of the more sobering findings:

Only 6 percent of those surveyed had finished a two- or four-year college degree by age 24, and nearly one-quarter did not have a high school diploma or GED.

Nearly 60 percent of the young men had been convicted of a crime.

Only 48 percent were working, compared with 72 percent of their peers who hadn’t been in foster care. For those working, the median income annual was just $8,000.

Nearly 40 percent had been homeless or had “couch-surfed” since leaving foster care, and three-quarters of the young women had received public assistance in the last year.

Imagine the impact on our cities if those kids had found stable, loving families before (preferably long before) they turned 18.

And imagine the impact on the kids.

Children in foster care “have been removed from their birth family homes for reasons of neglect, abuse, abandonment, or other issues endangering their health and/or safety.” Foster children become available for adoption when the parental rights of their birth parents are terminated by the state. A child who has suffered in these ways is likely to benefit immeasurably from simply being loved.

Many of us think of adoption as a “last ditch” choice — one that we make if we have exhausted all of our options to have a child biologically. But adoption can also be viewed as a very intentional way to create a family. Adopting a child from foster care means choosing to open your home to someone like Brian, one of the many kids featured on the weekly television segment, Wednesday’s Child:

Brian has dreams of guarding the streets as a police officer when he is older. He is a very mature young man, has a great sense of humor, and gets along well with his peers. In school, he enjoys math, science, and recess. During his spare time, he likes to play video games, sports, and watch movies. His ideal day would include eating at McDonald’s and watching wrestling. In the future, Brian would like to be very successful and have LOTS of money.

When talking to Brian, he agrees that you must use teamwork in a family. While Brian has many goals for the future, his current goal is to find a family to which he can belong. He would like to have a family that will be there to support his goals, dreams, and aspirations. Will someone add him to their team?

What could be more intentional than adults who really want a child opening their home to a kid who really wants parents? And — for those of you who’d prefer to parent from infancy — we’re not just talking about big kids. Some children enter the foster care system immediately after birth.

In most states, adopting a foster child is legal (even encouraged) regardless of marital status, age, or sexual orientation. There aren’t long waiting lists. And, unlike private adoption, it’s not horrendously expensive. And so, my GIWKs, you have an alternative. Foster adoption is a good choice for the planet, for the families it creates, and for the health of our communities. It’s the ultimate happy ending.

In Boston’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood, some teens got so fed up that they put together a film about the dire need for real sex education.

Here’s the trailer:

The high school students have also launched a Facebook campaign and drawn up a list of demands, including “comprehensive sexuality education” beginning in 9th grade and designated school staffers to whom students can go for free condoms.

Many teenagers are daunted by the prospect of buying contraception in a drug store, as high-school junior Merilin Castillo explains: “[I]n CVS, they have [the condoms] behind a bin and it’s locked. So you have to go through the shameful process of asking someone if I can please have a condom. If there are people around, if there’s anyone that you know around, it’s very awkward to have to be like, ‘Hey, can you open this so I can buy a condom?'”

You might think old-fashioned school sex ed is passé anyway. Everything you need to know is at your fingertips on the internet, right? In the case of teens and sex, not so. A new study to be published in the Journal of Health Communication found that American teenagers are wary of sexual health info online (with good reason). “The teens indicated a distrust of online information because it is often user-generated and could therefore be incorrect. They also noted that they would probably have to sort through an abundance of sexually explicit material to find the factual information they were looking for,” according to a press release about the study.

If we don’t want teens to rely on what they find by googling “sex,” we need to get decent sex ed into our schools.

This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

]]>http://grist.org/article/2011-01-08-teens-say-please-give-us-decent-sex-ed-video/feed/0sex-in-school-200x212.jpg2010: The year childfree went mainstream (thanks, Oprah!)http://grist.org/childfree/2010-12-31-2010-the-year-childfree-went-mainstream-thanks-oprah/
Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:52:27 +0000http://grist.org/?p=76023]]>Childlessness is nothing new — for as long as we’ve had parents, we’ve had people who are not parents. Across centuries and cultures, at least 10 percent of women never have children, writes Elizabeth Gilbert.

But it is relatively new to have a cohort of people who are deliberate, outspoken, and even proud about being childless — or, as we prefer to say, childfree. We nonparents have traditionally been a quiet minority. And we’re still a minority — albeit a growing one, now about 20 percent in both the U.S. and the U.K. — but we’re no longer so quiet.

In 2010, the childfree started making some real noise. Get used to it; you’ll be hearing a lot more racket from us in the future. Here are some of the cultural signals and media moments that have rung out during the past year, putting the childfree lifestyle in the spotlight as never before.

Oprah’s having a baby! (No, not that kind)

Oprah Winfrey is probably the most powerful and influential childfree person on the planet. She doesn’t harp(o) on her decision to skip motherhood, but in a December 2010 interview with Barbara Walters, she said, “I have not one regret about not having children.” As she explained, “I could not have had this life and lived it with the level of intensity that is required to do this show the way it’s done. I’d be one of those people that their kid’s coming and saying, ‘Mom, you’ve neglected me.'”

Oprah has found other outlets for her nurturing instincts — like students at the school she set up in South Africa a few years ago. “These girls are like my children,” she said. “That’s not just rhetoric for me. I take their futures and the possibility for what their futures hold very seriously.” And now she’s channeling some of that maternal intensity toward the Oprah Winfrey Network, which launches on Jan. 1. “I look at this launch as the birthing of a baby,” she said. “I’m about as calm as a person who’s about to give birth to such a humongous baby can be.”

Watch Oprah talking to Barbara about her choice not to have kids (starting at 7:29):

You’ve come a long way, babyless

The childfree got another high-profile (albeit fictional) spokeswoman this year in Carrie Bradshaw, who defends her decision not to become a mom in Sex and the City 2. “We both love kids, but it’s just not who we are,” Carrie says of herself and her husband.

But ironically, the most compelling arguments for the childfree lifestyle this year came from parents.

Take the much-buzzed-about cover story in New York magazine, “All joy and no fun: Why parents hate parenting” — or, as the cover put it, “I love my children. I hate my life.” Jennifer Senior writes with jarring frankness about the downsides of parenting:

Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. … Perhaps the most oft-cited datum comes from a 2004 study by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, who surveyed 909 working Texas women and found that child care ranked sixteenth in pleasurability out of nineteen activities. (Among the endeavors they preferred: preparing food, watching TV, exercising, talking on the phone, napping, shopping, housework.) This result also shows up regularly in relationship research, with children invariably reducing marital satisfaction. The economist Andrew Oswald, who’s compared tens of thousands of Britons with children to those without, is at least inclined to view his data in a more positive light: “The broad message is not that children make you less happy; it’s just that children don’t make you more happy.” That is, he tells me, unless you have more than one. “Then the studies show a more negative impact.”

Senior’s grim portrait of parenthood is accompanied by a tantalizing description of the idealized childfree life:

Lori Leibovich, the executive editor of Babble and the anthology Maybe Baby, a collection of 28 essays by writers debating whether to have children, says she was particularly struck by the female contributors who’d made the deliberate choice to remain childless. It enabled them to travel or live abroad for their work; to take physical risks; to, in the case of a novelist, inhabit her fictional characters without being pulled away by the demands of a real one. “There was a richness and texture to their work lives that was so, so enviable,” she says.

Even the author of the forthcoming book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, economics professor Bryan Caplan, started from the premise that parenthood is a bum deal in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that ran in the spring. It’s “true that modern parents are less happy than their childless counterparts,” he admits. “[C]hild No. 1 does almost all the damage,” he writes, citing the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey. But here’s his positive angle: “Each child after the first reduces your probability of being very happy by a mere .6 percentage points.” Color me unconvinced.

The Audi ad that ran during the Super Bowl featured the “green police” arresting people for various eco-crimes like not composting an orange peel. It ends with Audi’s suggestion for evading the green police: driving off in a diesel A3 TDI (named by Green Car Journal as Green Car of the Year). David Roberts’ commentary on whether the ad was aimed at teabaggers or enviros got folks all hot ‘n’ bothered.

This horrific slideshow caused many a Grist reader to burp up some vomit. Featuring gems like canned cheeseburger, canned alligator, and even an entire canned chicken, plus non-canned delights like Twinkie sushi, it’s a gallery of shudder-inducing non-foods that remind you how fake and additive-laden our nosh has become. Don’t view it over lunch.

School-food investigator Ed Bruske broke the news that First Lady Michelle Obama would help 6,000 public schools get fresh food through a new public-private partnership called Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools. Somehow, Tea Party mad-hatters interpreted this to mean that she’d be forcing carrot sticks down every American kid’s throat, and swarmed to our comment section to protest. Others worried that small children would spread germs. The USDA later said it would OK salad bars in elementary schools with appropriate food-safety precautions.

In an impassioned plea to the prez this past April, Jonathan Hiskes argued that the Gulf oil spill was the perfect illustration of our urgent need for renewable energy. “It’s a prime opportunity to pressure the Senate to put a price on carbon pollution and invest in the R&D necessary to jump-start a clean energy economy,” wrote Hiskes. “This is a golden opportunity to completely change course and work toward ditching fossil fuels.” Did Obama take note? Apparently not.

You’re not paranoid if they’re really out to get you. And if you’ve got anything to do with distributing unpasteurized milk or other “nutrient-dense foods,” with or without a license, then you should be prepared for a knock on the door from the FDA and/or your local health officials. Raw Milk Revolution author David Gumpert’s five tips for surviving a raid on your farm or food club seemed to many readers to be essential information.

This gutsy screed from Northern California farmer Rebecca Thistlewaite gave a lot of locavores something to chew on, saying that our crappy industrialized food system would never change as long as they bought pastured eggs from the farmers market just once a month and Trader Joe’s “cage-free organic” the rest of the time. She offered up more than 25 ways that conscientious eaters can make a real difference. Unfortunately it was already too late for Thistlewaite’s farm when she wrote that post: She announced a few weeks later that TLC Ranch was not sustainable financially for her family and was closing down.

Lisa Hymas’ explanation of her choice to be childfree spawned (ahem) lots of discussion, attracted media attention from outlets like MSNBC, earned a Population Institute media award, and launched the term GINK (green inclinations, no kids) into the lexicon. “Here’s the dirty little secret that we’re never supposed to say in mixed company: There are a lot of perks to childfree living, not to mention a lot of green good that comes from bringing fewer beings onto a polluted and crowded planet,” she writes.

Readers voted hamburger the Scariest Food of 2010 thanks to stories like this one, about a New York Times exposé of a company called Beef Products that sells what’s known in the industry as “pink slime.” This horrible hamburger helper is made of fatty sweepings from the slaughterhouse floor, ground into a paste, and laced with ammonia to kill pathogens — and it ends up in 70 percent of burgers in the United States. The worst part? This penny-pinching paste is just making more people sick.

]]>top6-2010.jpg1Audi green police adBP coffee spill23Happy Mealcanned chicken45Michelle ObamaObama on a beach67crime scenea well-endowed boar89GINKraw burger meat10How the childfree can be parents toohttp://grist.org/childfree/2010-12-14-gink-how-childfree-can-be-parents-too/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-12-14-gink-how-childfree-can-be-parents-too/#respondWed, 15 Dec 2010 02:32:34 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-14-gink-how-childfree-can-be-parents-too/]]>Deciding to be childfree doesn’t have to mean forgoing all the joys and oys of parenting. In a new piece in YES! magazine, Wendy Call describes her life as a co-parent — “not some new alternative but an old tradition,” she writes.

Call and her partner Aram are confirmed GINKs (green inclinations, no kids). But they’ve rejected the “stark” choice to either “become parents for every minute of every day, or not at all.” She and Aram are co-parents a few hours at a time, a few times a week, to the 3-year-old daughter of close friends and neighbors.

Aram and I are Lesley’s padrinos. The word translates as “godparents,” but the concept indicates something broader in Mexico [where Lesley’s parents are from]. Padrinos are responsible for everything a child’s parents can’t provide, whether that is a well-rounded meal, new clothes, child care, or a college education. Aram and I have started saving for that last one.

The experience of co-parenting Lesley has brightened their lives, but also “affirmed our decision not to have children,” Call writes. “As much as we adore her, and as willingly as we’d care for her full-time if necessary, we’ve never wished she were our child.”

Friends and acquaintances don’t know what to make of this arrangement. In contemporary American culture, we idealize the nuclear family, even as most of us don’t come close to attaining it (and growing numbers of us don’t even want it). We’ve got lots of single parents and divorced parents and stepparents. Why not add co-parents to the mix?

In a situation like Call’s, co-parenting can be great for everyone involved. Parents get some relief. Childfree people get to enjoy hanging out and bonding with a kid. And the kid herself gets extra love and attention. “Caring for children can be overwhelming, lonely, even frightening. Parents weren’t meant to go it alone,” Call argues.

We … assume that “mother” and “father” are exclusive terms, though in other cultures, these terms are applied to a variety of aunts, uncles, and other adults. Kinship is not exclusively biological, after all, and you need a brood to raise a brood. Cooperative child-rearing is obviously convenient, but some anthropologists believe that it also serves another more important function: Multiple caregivers enhance the cognitive skills of babies and young children. Any family in which there are parents, grandparents, nannies and other concerned adults understands how readily children adapt to different caregivers. Surely this prepares them better for life than stressed-out biological parents alone.

Jong continues: “The first wave of feminists, in the 19th century, dreamed of communal kitchens and nurseries. … Our foremothers might be appalled by how little we have transformed the world of motherhood.”

Could co-parenting be both an environmental and a feminist answer to the question of how to raise kids in challenging times? Could it work for you? Should we set up a matching service for harried parents and kid-loving GINKs?

]]>http://grist.org/childfree/2010-12-14-gink-how-childfree-can-be-parents-too/feed/0family-mom-dad-kid_463x308.jpgDo the childfree get the shaft at work?http://grist.org/childfree/2010-11-27-do-the-childfree-get-the-shaft-at-work/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-11-27-do-the-childfree-get-the-shaft-at-work/#respondSun, 28 Nov 2010 01:14:09 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-27-do-the-childfree-get-the-shaft-at-work/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Just in time to stir up angst for the holiday season, CNN and The Fiscal Times look at how childfree people can get stuck working longer hours and less desirable days and shifts.

CNN picked up the theme and invited Reynolds Lewis and a childfree man she quotes in her article, Richard Levy, to talk with anchor Don Lemon:

I’ve heard other childfree people talk about this kind of unfair treatment (and in fact Elinor Burkett wrote a whole book about it a few years ago). Have you experienced it yourself? Me, I’ve been lucky — my Grist colleagues with kids work just as hard as the rest of us, if not harder, and we all enjoy a reasonable amount of flexibility. This holiday weekend, my thanks goes outto them.

]]>http://grist.org/childfree/2010-11-27-do-the-childfree-get-the-shaft-at-work/feed/0work-schedule_200x133.jpgBristol Palin and 'The Situation' talk up safe sex [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-11-20-bristol-palin-and-the-situation-talk-up-safe-sex-video/
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-20-bristol-palin-and-the-situation-talk-up-safe-sex-video/#respondSat, 20 Nov 2010 20:00:43 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-20-bristol-palin-and-the-situation-talk-up-safe-sex-video/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

In between training sessions for Dancing With the Stars, Bristol Palin found time to team up with Jersey Shore‘s “The Situation” to film this bizarro PSA. It’s for the Candie’s Foundation, which uses celebrities (and apparently some fauxlebrities) to “educate America’s youth about the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy” — something Palin certainly knows about.

I’d say it’s an effective PSA: After watching this, I’m even less inclined to procreate than I was before.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-11-20-bristol-palin-and-the-situation-talk-up-safe-sex-video/feed/0bristol_palin_situation_572x313.jpgMad Men’s Vincent Kartheiser won’t have kids for green reasons [VIDEO]http://grist.org/childfree/2010-11-17-gink-mad-men-vincent-kartheiser-wont-have-kids-for-green-reasons/
Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:26:48 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-17-gink-mad-men-vincent-kartheiser-wont-have-kids-for-green-reasons/]]>This is the latest in a series of GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).
Vodpod videos no longer available.

]]>kartheiser-pete-campbell-amc.jpg'Sister Wives' is latest reality show to glorify mega-familieshttp://grist.org/article/2010-11-06-tlc-sister-wives-is-latest-reality-show-to-glorify-mega-families/
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-06-tlc-sister-wives-is-latest-reality-show-to-glorify-mega-families/#respondSat, 06 Nov 2010 23:39:19 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-06-tlc-sister-wives-is-latest-reality-show-to-glorify-mega-families/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Sister Wives debuted in September, chronicling the adventures of Kody Brown and his three … no, no, wait for it … four wives and their many, many children. They live in Lehi, Utah, and are members of a fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon church. It’s like Big Love — only for reals!

So far the Duggars actually have the Browns beat, 19 kids versus 16 — but the smart money goes on the Browns to win the long game, as they’ve got four moms hard at work to the Duggars’ paltry one. Luckily, we’ll get a chance to find out. After the conclusion of the show’s short, seven-episode first season, it’s been renewed for a second season, to start airing in March 2011.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-11-06-tlc-sister-wives-is-latest-reality-show-to-glorify-mega-families/feed/0sister-wives-family.jpgWhat does the election mean for population and reproductive rights?http://grist.org/article/2010-11-04-what-election-means-for-reproductive-rights-population-women/
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-04-what-election-means-for-reproductive-rights-population-women/#respondFri, 05 Nov 2010 03:06:42 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-04-what-election-means-for-reproductive-rights-population-women/]]>Reproductive rights and abortion were not big issues in this fall’s election. It was all economy, economy, economy. The one big anti-abortion ballot measure — Colorado Amendment 62, which would have conferred “personhood” starting at conception — was trounced by a 3-to-1 margin.

But that doesn’t mean reproductive rights won’t suffer because of the election.

Congress will now have a lot more anti-choicers in its halls: at least 49 new members of the House and seven senators, including extremists like Tea Partier Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes abortion even in cases of incest and rape. And at least 10 governorships have flipped from pro-choice to anti-choice.

[The] election did not, in my reading of polls, votes and analyses, represent an anti-choice mandate, an anti–health reform mandate, nor an anti-environment mandate. But don’t worry, that won’t stop anti-choice, anti–health care, climate-change-denialist politicians from “creating” said mandates both in their rhetoric and in their actions. …

[H]ere is my prediction: We will see almost immediately a range of efforts to focus on restricting reproductive and sexual health and rights. A House of Representatives led by the Republicans and Tea Partiers will give full reign to the likes of Congressmen Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Mike Pence (R-Ind.), and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) to constantly push for restrictions on women’s rights in U.S. international policy. They will try to pass a law codifying a global gag rule, try to reinforce and strengthen abstinence-only until marriage funding in U.S. global AIDS funding.

And this newly empowered contingent of right-wingers won’t stop at trying to curtail international family-planning and reproductive-health programs.

Watch for a big domestic fight over whether birth control should be covered as preventive care. Under the new health-care law, a panel of experts will begin meeting this month to recommend what kinds of preventive care insurance companies should be required to provide free to women. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who wrote the women’s health amendment that passed as part of the health-care bill, says the legislation was clearly intended to cover family planning services.

Indeed, if preventing unwanted pregnancy doesn’t count as preventive care, what does? Ob-gyn David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina, lays it out:

There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health. Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine.

While retrograde anti-choicers will control the House next year, they don’t have a majority in the Senate, and President Obama can be expected to veto the worst of any legislation that manages to squeak through both houses of Congress. But the anti-choice lobby is relentless and wily, and small changes in policy can have huge impacts on women’s choices and lives, so watch out.

But at a recent debate, when asked what set her apart as a candidate, Fallin didn’t start off by talking about her experience in Congress or as lieutenant governor. Instead, she said, “First of all, being a mother, having children, raising a family” — an apparent dig at Askins, who doesn’t have kids. That cheap shot drew groans from some in the audience.

Asked about her opponent’s comment after the debate, Askins had a great response:

I always expected to be married and have a passel full of kids. But none of that ever happened. Rather than sit back and worry about it, I devoted my life to trying to serve all the children of Oklahoma.

Askins also told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing:

[T]here have been wonderful leaders in both Oklahoma and certainly around the country that have not chosen to have children. And my experience as a judge for eight years, 12 years in the legislature, and as lieutenant governor I think really equips me for the governing side of the position of governor.

I have had that experience before when I’ve run for office. … It’s usually been quieter when it’s been brought up. It’s the first time it’s been brought up in a debate.

It’s the same sort of suspicion that was thrown at Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during her confirmation process.

While the Mama Grizzly theme has been rampant among Republicans this election season, not all GOP women are buying it. Said Brenda Reneau, Oklahoma’s former labor commissioner, “I don’t understand why that’s important. Is she going to bring them to work? I’ve never found one thing while I was in office that I needed experience in being married and having children.”

In the end, the governor’s mansion will likely be home to Fallin and her blended family of six kids; Fallin is up 20 points in the polls.

]]>mary-fallin-jari-askins.jpgMichelle Goldberg on the globalized culture war over reproductive rights [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-10-30-michelle-goldberg-globalized-culture-war-reproductive-rights/
http://grist.org/article/2010-10-30-michelle-goldberg-globalized-culture-war-reproductive-rights/#respondSat, 30 Oct 2010 21:16:30 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-30-michelle-goldberg-globalized-culture-war-reproductive-rights/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Michelle GoldbergThe culture war raging in the U.S. over abortion and reproductive rights isn’t confined within our country’s borders — it’s gone global. American Christian conservatives have teamed up with Islamic fundamentalists, the Vatican, and other religious traditionalists around the world to fight efforts to bring contraception, abortion rights, and basic equality to women everywhere.

As Michelle Goldberg puts it in her 2009 book The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World, “All over the planet, conflicts between tradition and modernity are being fought on the terrain of women’s bodies.” It’s one of the best books you’ll read on the evolution of the population movement and the current state of the battle for reproductive rights. Her emphasis is on women’s well-being rather than the health of the environment, with the understanding that the two are inextricably tied up together.

Here’s Goldberg talking about the book last year:

The video cuts out at 10 minutes, but you can watch the rest at pdxjustice.org.

[W]omen’s rights and particularly reproductive rights are really at the heart of development, they’re at the heart of the answer to almost every pressing problem that we’re facing, whether it be environmental devastation or the persistence of global poverty or the AIDS pandemic. You can’t begin to address any of these problems until you address the oppression of women. When you start looking at these issues, you see that all over the world there are forces that are very much desperate to keep women from making any progress because they see, and I think rightly, that changes in women’s status and autonomy and power and earning capability and role within the family, all these things are the ultimate harbingers of modernity, of urbanization, of globalization … [S]o fundamentalists all over the world, whether we’re talking about here or in Afghanistan or in India or in Africa or in South America, in their hatred of the modern world, in their desperate desire to restore some kind of lost paradise that probably never existed …, they see the key to that as restoring women to what they see as their proper place.

Or, as she writes in her book:

[T]he conflation of women’s rights with globalization or Westernization, and the concomitant desire to limit them in the name of national or cultural integrity, is nearly universal. … women’s rights are perhaps the most visible sign of modernity and thus an obvious bête noire for flourishing fundamentalist movements.

Environmentalists don’t talk about population much these days, but they talk about women’s rights even less. As American right-wingers team up with Islamic fundamentalists to push their retrograde agenda, isn’t it about time that the green movement and women’s movement collaborate and push their progressive causes jointly?

Have a video on population or GINK thinking to recommend? Post a link in comments below.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-10-30-michelle-goldberg-globalized-culture-war-reproductive-rights/feed/0Michelle-Goldberg-599x600.jpgMichelle Goldberg"Means of Reproduction" book coverPopulation media awards go to me and other, more worthy journalistshttp://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-25-population-institute-global-media-awards-gink-journalists/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-25-population-institute-global-media-awards-gink-journalists/#respondTue, 26 Oct 2010 04:56:56 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-25-population-institute-global-media-awards-gink-journalists/]]>I’m honored to have been named a winner of one of the Population Institute’s Global Media Awards for Excellence in Population Reporting this year (aw, shucks), and humbled to be in the company of the other inspiring recipients. They’ve all done impressive work to bring awareness to population issues through all different kinds of media. Check them out:

Dick Smith Population Puzzle, Best TV Show. Check out the show’s website. It airs on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

“The Climate Connection: Are There Too Many People on the Planet?,” Best Radio Show. It ran on the BBC World Service before the Copenhagen climate talks. Listen to it.

Makutano Junction, Best Serial Drama. This TV show, which has aired in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, tackles issues like contraception, family planning, and unsafe abortion. Find out more and watch episodes.

This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

This season’s It Book, Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, features a protagonist who’s profoundly worried about population growth. Here’s the author discussing the issue. (The first minute of the video has Franzen registering his “profound discomfort” at having to record “little videos like this”; the population discussion starts at 0:56.)

Says Franzen:

One of the characters in the book has a bee in his bonnet about world overpopulation, and he points out, rightly, that pretty much every serious problem we have in the world is, if not caused by too many people, certainly aggravated by it. And he’s frustrated in the book because it’s become kind of a taboo thing, nobody will talk about it, it’s the elephant in the room.

So I wanted to talk about the elephant in the room a little bit, but I wanted to do it in the context of a marriage that is about raising children, and in the context of how incredibly meaningful and central the raising of children, the reproduction of a species, is to our understanding of ourselves.

And this is part of what I think a novel is supposed to do — it’s supposed to find ways to connect the largest possible social picture with the most intimate, personal, difficult-to-express human stories.

It’s notable enough that a critically acclaimed, best-selling author is addressing this issue, but it’s also going to get an airing on Oprah. She’s chosen Freedom for her book club, proclaiming it to be “exquisite,” a “tour de force,” a “masterpiece,” “everything you want in a book,” and “one of the best novels [I] have ever read.” I’m not an Oprah watcher so I don’t know whether she’s that effusive about all her picks, but when you’ve got the most influential woman in media telling her massive audience to read a fabulous book in which population and other environmental issues feature prominently — well, that’s something.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-10-23-jonathan-franzen-tackles-population-gears-up-for-oprah-freedom/feed/0jonathan-franzen-220x220.jpgA green guide to getting along for parents and the childfreehttp://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-14-green-guide-getting-along-parents-childfree-gink/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-14-green-guide-getting-along-parents-childfree-gink/#respondThu, 14 Oct 2010 17:00:54 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-14-green-guide-getting-along-parents-childfree-gink/]]>Lisa’s posts about being a GINK (green inclinations, no kids) have provoked some feisty discussion, and that’s great — getting people to talk openly about the childfree option was one of her main goals. But when it gets to the point where parents and GINKs are hurling insults at each other and declaring that folks on the other side of the aisle can’t be real environmentalists, then we’ve got a circular-firing-squad problem.

We enviros are all on the same team, remember — pushing for a cleaner, greener, saner, kinder world. We should be fighting apathy and pollutocrats, not each other. Let’s all of us green-minded people support each other’s choices and get each other’s backs.

To that end, Michelle — a Grist contributor and mom — suggested that we collaborate to come up with some cross-cultural communication tips for both GINKs and green parents.

What not to say to green parents

“How’s the little parasite today?”No need to remind green parents about global problems and the potentially exacerbating effects of our offspring. Give us some credit: We’ve thought hard about the same issues you have, and made our choices for both personal and planetary reasons. Besides, we’re already planning to offset our family carbon footprint by building wind turbines out of soggy crackers and Legos. (Oh, sorry, do we sound a wee bit cranky?)

“We never see you at _______ anymore.”Save us the guilt trip: Parents are all too aware of their delinquency at community meetings, tree-sits, and whatever else we used to do for the greater good. But have faith that we haven’t forgotten you, or our shared causes. Many parents find that our connection to our kid(s) gives our environmental activism extra urgency. When there are breaks in the chaos, you’ll see us green parents showing up for the good fight again, perhaps even with new commitment.

What to say to green parents

“Can I give you a hand?”Whether you’re making a friendly offer to babysit, wash the dishes, or tie our shoes, we will look at you with pathetic gratitude. We guarantee it.

“Bring the kid!”Don’t worry, we don’t expect you to turn your next organic-martini party into a toddler playgroup. But we would love for our kid(s) to get to know you, and for you to get to know them — and, being dependent mammals and all, they’re kind of hard to leave behind, especially at first. So if you can see your way to including them in some gatherings — and in your life in general — please do.

“Have you heard the latest about the state solar initiative?” (or Obama’s green-jobs plan or that new study on organics …)The early months and years of parenthood can be isolating, and as much as we love our kid(s), we really do miss being up on all the latest green developments. So after you’ve patiently listened to us run on about cloth diapers and BPA-free sippy cups — we do try to control ourselves, but it’s tough — offer to bring us up to speed on what’s happening on the local or global environmental front.

What not to say to GINKs

“Why don’t you like kids?”Most of us do like kids. We’re glad to have them in our lives — nieces, nephews, friends’ children, students — and are happy to be able to play with them, teach them, and occasionally use them as an excuse to see the latest Pixar movie. (And then, yes, we’re happy to hand them back.)

“Kids are fantastic. You should reconsider.”As another childfree blogger puts it: “Imagine that I went up to a pregnant woman and said, ‘Hey, the childfree life is fantastic! Why don’t you reconsider?’ This is what it feels like when you tell me to reconsider my decision to be childfree. I respect your decision to have a child and am willing to accept that you have good, valid reasons for doing so. It’s your turn to return the favor.”

“You’ll change your mind.”Don’t patronize us. There’s no reason to believe that GINKs are any more likely to change their minds than parents (and if by chance we do, it’s a lot easier for us to reverse course).

“You’re just the kind of person who should have kids.”Thanks for the compliment, but there’s no reason to think my kids (or any kids) would make the world a better place. Good parents try their best to instill in their children strong social and environmental values, but ultimately kids determine their own destinies, parents be damned. Plus, quite simply, no one should have a child if they don’t really want one. (More on this.)

What to say to GINKs

“Congrats on making the decision that’s right for you.”Green parents get congratulated all the time — everyone can get behind a cute baby, after all — but GINKs rarely get recognized, which can feel pretty lonely. If you understand and respect where we’re coming from, let us know.

“How’s your biodynamic garden?” (or house or job or goldfish …)Even though we don’t have kids, we do have things in our lives that matter a lot to us. Ask about them and show you care.

What we can all quietly think to ourselves

]]>http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-14-green-guide-getting-along-parents-childfree-gink/feed/0parent-gink.jpgNPR's Scott Simon on adoption and environmentalismhttp://grist.org/article/2010-10-12-npr-scott-simon-on-adoption-and-environmentalism/
http://grist.org/article/2010-10-12-npr-scott-simon-on-adoption-and-environmentalism/#respondTue, 12 Oct 2010 17:00:36 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-npr-scott-simon-on-adoption-and-environmentalism/]]>Scott Simon“I wish that people who want to become parents would consider adoption as a great way to have a family from the start, and not just a last resort,” writes Scott Simon in his new book Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other: In Praise of Adoption. Simon, host of NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday, is father to two young girls adopted from China.

I thought the eco-conscious crowd would be a perfect audience for Simon’s book, so I got myself a copy and arranged to interview him.

I was surprised, then, when I sat down to read the book and came across this passage:

Adopting a child to prove something is not a healthy motivation. I would seriously consider alerting the authorities if I heard a prospective parent say, “We want to adopt because it’s the most environmentally responsible thing to do. Don’t want to increase our carbon footprint, after all!”

Has any environmentally concerned person ever chosen adoption in order to “prove something,” and what might that “something” be? I asked Simon about this when we sat down to talk in Seattle recently. But first we kicked off our conversation with general talk about adoption and his book.

—–

Q. In writing this book, do you want to encourage more people to consider adoption when they’re forming their families?

A. I don’t mind saying yes. I hope they’ll think of adoption not just as a last option. I’m a little ashamed to say that my wife and I, our reflex position when we accepted that we couldn’t naturally conceive like Abraham and Sarah was not adoption. We went through a couple rounds of assisted fertility, which didn’t work. We made a decision after those rounds that this is ridiculous — there are children in the world already who need us, so why don’t we do that?

Q.What challenges do adoptive parents face?

A. You want to be sensitive to the ways in which your child may need special attention because of the way they began life — the months they spent in institutions, where they didn’t receive the sort of intimate nurturing you would like to think every child in the world could have. And yet you don’t want to make that into some kind of trauma or infirmity or trace everything back to that.

Q.What sort of support systems have you discovered for parents with adopted children?

A. We have seen a very good family therapist, where we can come together and talk about getting along. It’s not a sign of weakness, any more than going to the dentist is.

Until recently, [our daughters] were going to a weekly cultural class. We call it Chinese class — it’s Mandarin and stories and songs.

Q.Are there good things that have come about through adoption that you didn’t expect?

A. I think in some other families — like the one I grew up in — you assume a lot. “Oh, my son, of course he knows I love him.” I think with adoption, you’re inspired to talk about this kind of stuff out loud, lift the hood on the engine a little bit, talk about how important you are to each other. That’s been wonderful.

Q.People like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and Madonna have made international adoption seem trendy. Overall, do you think that’s had good or bad effects?

A. I think good. I don’t know if it’s had an effect in terms of statistics. It has opened a kind of window to adoption, put it into people’s minds. Brad and Angelina adopted before they had [biological] kids, and that’s an option too.

A. I think I said in the book that I would call the authorities myself if somebody said, “I want to adopt because I want to reduce my carbon footprint.” Because I think you ought to have children out of joy, not out of sense of duty.

But that being said, there are 150 million orphaned and abandoned children in this world, and that’s the only chance at life they get. They deserve loving families. If somehow you could connect the number of people in this world who want to have children and more of the youngsters out there who could use families, that’s a kind of global warming we could all use.

I try to discourage the idea that adopting youngsters is a good thing to do the way giving to Oxfam is a good thing to do. But it is a good thing to do. It’s good for those of us who adopt. It’s transforming — literally, physically, emotionally transforming.

Coming back to the fact that you should be a parent joyfully — you shouldn’t say, “Well, we want to have children, but I just can’t stand bringing another child into the world when there’s so many already, and I want to reduce our carbon footprint.” But if on the other hand you want to have a family, and you say, “Gosh, there’s so many children in the world, why don’t we adopt?” — that I think is good. That’s out of joy.

Q.You make the point in your book that no one adopts by accident. Obviously, anybody, no matter what their reason, is doing it because they want to be a parent. I don’t think anybody would adopt to prove a point.

A. No, I certainly hope not.

Q.But those are your words in the book.

A. And I can’t say I’ve ever run into anybody who’s ever said that.

I’m not trying to stand in judgment. I don’t regret the two rounds of assisted fertility my wife and I went through, in the sense that we learned something from it. But we’ve known people who have gone through so many rounds of assisted fertility, and that just strikes me as utterly useless when there are already children in the world. I have talked to people who have said, “I would have loved to adopt, but I couldn’t qualify, so we went to an assisted facility,” and that I understand. But I hope our story and the story of others will get people to consider there are already children in the world.

Q.I work for an environmental publication, and I’ve been writing lately about my choice not to have children, which I didn’t make for environmental reasons — I just don’t think it’s right for me. But it’s been stimulating dialogue about different ways of living, different ways of forming families.

A. When we make a decision like that, it’s not always permanent.

Q.No. I reserve the right to change my mind, but I don’t expect to.

A. And you shouldn’t feel like there’s any pressure to do that. I think when I was 30 I might’ve said the same thing, and then I felt profoundly different. I talk to people in the book who say they have no interest whatsoever in meeting their birth parents, and I think it’s possible that five months or five years or 10 years after saying
that, they may feel differently. There’s a plotline on Grey’s Anatomy about that right now. Or, forgive me, if you meet someone.

Q.Anyway, I got some requests from people who are concerned about environmental issues and wanted to hear about adoption as a potential option — people who want to be parents but are concerned about leaving the world in a livable condition for the next generation. So that passage in your book struck me as really judgmental and unfair to people who are concerned about environmental issues and who might want to consider adoption.

A. I’m sorry if it sounded judgmental. There’s a thin line in a book like this where you reach conclusions out of your own experience. Obviously they should make their own judgments. Having children is a profoundly personal decision and personal experience, and I can’t put myself in the position of judging. I keep getting back to the fact that I think for all kinds of different reasons, [adoption is] a very good thing to do.

That being said, anybody who has children should do it out of a sense of joy, not out of a sense of duty. That doesn’t come to the exclusion of also wanting to be a responsible citizen of the planet.

Q.I think it can be a joyful decision to want to be working toward a better world for your kids and want to have kids. I question the notion that it’s somehow not joyful to want to live your values as you create your family.

A. I think that’s a better way of putting it. If that’s who you are, that embodies your values, then of course. I guess I’d be concerned about people that just decide that’s the factor that will send them to do it. Although, this being said here, I’m trying to be aware of my own contradictions. I don’t recall my exact words, but I don’t mean to insult anybody else’s moral position.

Q.Ironically, your happy family came about through the unhappy circumstance of China’s draconian one-child policy. How do you reconcile that in your mind?

A. What we tell ourselves — and it’s not just to reassure ourselves, it’s the absolute truth — is that we did not get our children from a family or a single mother; we got them out of institutions. If we hadn’t adopted them, or somebody else hadn’t adopted them, they would’ve grown up in institutions. They wouldn’t have grown up in institutions in the way that we understand growing up — they would have stayed there until the age of 12 or 13, then they would’ve gone into farm or factory work, or worse, which is too terrible to contemplate. It’s China’s one-child policy that took them away from their families. I don’t think anything would’ve been accomplished by leaving them there. I say a few times in the book, it’s our blessing that began with a tragedy, a tragedy that’s also a crime.

It’s also not as if my wife and I decided we found China’s one-child policy so reprehensible that we decided we were going to get one and then two daughters from there. [We did it] for a lot of different reasons, up to and including falling in love with Chinatown in New York. You look for signs.

We have adopted two girls who are Chinese; we are a half-Chinese family now. In a way, we feel much more obliged to inform ourselves about what’s going on in China, and explicitly with state planning of family policies, than we probably did before we adopted our daughters from China, because this is part of our family now, it’s part of our heritage too.

Q.Anything else you’d like to add?

A. I find it odd that we have so many new technologies for having families now, and adoption is as ancient as childbirth. I would not want some of the new technologies to come at the expense of adoption. Children who need families are a great potential blessing in so many lives, and that’s what I hope people will open their eyes to.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-10-12-npr-scott-simon-on-adoption-and-environmentalism/feed/0Scott-Simon-1024x780.jpgScott Simonbook cover: "Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other"Tyra Banks quizzes childfree couple [VIDEO]http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-09-tyra-banks-quizzes-childfree-couple-video/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-09-tyra-banks-quizzes-childfree-couple-video/#respondSat, 09 Oct 2010 22:46:30 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-09-tyra-banks-quizzes-childfree-couple-video/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Watch Tracy and Jared tell a slightly aghast Tyra Banks about their decision not to have kids:

Both halves of the couple talk about how for years they couldn’t find doctors who would sterilize them — a common problem for the childfree. Their families aren’t particularly supportive of their choice either.

Tyra comes across as dubious, but she doesn’t have kids herself, so maybe she’ll ultimately join the ranks of the childfree by choice?

Have a video on population or GINK thinking to recommend? Post a link in comments below.

]]>http://grist.org/childfree/2010-10-09-tyra-banks-quizzes-childfree-couple-video/feed/0tyra-banks.jpgSelf-reliance, population, and bringing children into a troubled world [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-10-01-self-reliance-population-growth-chris-martenson-video/
http://grist.org/article/2010-10-01-self-reliance-population-growth-chris-martenson-video/#respondSun, 03 Oct 2010 00:14:56 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-01-self-reliance-population-growth-chris-martenson-video/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Chris Martenson is a scientist-turned-corporate-executive-turned-evangelizer-for-self-reliance-and-resilience. He’s put together “The Crash Course,” a series of videos explaining how trends in economics, energy, and the environment are playing out in such a way that “the next 20 years are going to be completely unlike the last 20 years.”

Here’s his explanation of the concept of exponential growth, using world population as a key example:

I’m never sure what to make of Big-Crash-is-coming talk. I can see the logic behind it, and I certainly get the wisdom of becoming more self-reliant. (I need to get to work on that; I got a low-to-middling score on Yes! magazine’s self-reliance quiz.) But I’m more compelled (if not necessarily more convinced) by Alex Steffen’s vision of working to change systems and institutions rather than preparing for their inevitable collapse.

My encounters with collapse theory do resonate in one key way, though: They reinforce my decision not to bring children into an already-troubled-and-probably-soon-to-be-much-more-troubled world.

Have a video on population or GINK thinking to recommend? Post a link in comments below.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-10-01-self-reliance-population-growth-chris-martenson-video/feed/0disaster.jpgSoap operas spread word on reproductive health and population [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-09-25-soap-operas-spread-messages-about-reproductive-health-population/
http://grist.org/article/2010-09-25-soap-operas-spread-messages-about-reproductive-health-population/#respondSat, 25 Sep 2010 20:00:29 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-25-soap-operas-spread-messages-about-reproductive-health-population/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

The Brazilian telenovelaPaginas da Vida (Pages of Life), which aired from 2006 to 2007, spread progressive messages about reproductive health and other social issues to a mass audience. In this scene, two mothers come to grips with the fact that their teenagers are sexually active. As the more accepting of the moms points out, at least the teens care for each other and are using contraception. This follows a scene in which that same mom freaks out after finding condoms in her daughter’s purse.

The show was developed with assistance from the Population Media Center, which works with teams in developing countries around the world to create soap operas and radio dramas that spread information about family planning, HIV/AIDS, and other health issues. The group claims impressive successes [PDF] in encouraging people to seek out contraception and adopt healthier behaviors.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-09-25-soap-operas-spread-messages-about-reproductive-health-population/feed/0deborah-evelyn.jpgChristine O'Donnell sees no need to prevent pregnancy, use condoms, or care about population [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-09-18-christine-odonnell-sees-no-need-to-prevent-pregnancy-use-condoms/
http://grist.org/article/2010-09-18-christine-odonnell-sees-no-need-to-prevent-pregnancy-use-condoms/#respondSat, 18 Sep 2010 19:00:52 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-18-christine-odonnell-sees-no-need-to-prevent-pregnancy-use-condoms/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

The Tea Party darling of the week, Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, has gotten a lot of publicity for her anti-masturbation views — as I mentioned in my post about her anti–climate action views.

Now we learn about her loony opinions on population, contraception, and sex ed. Some choice quotes from her past:

In 2007, on Fox News, she argued against sex education for young kids, even when it’s designed to be age-appropriate, claiming that it might make kids think that “talking to that stranger with candy on the playground is not so creepy.”

In 2006, on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor: “[E]ven if the population is increasing, so what? So what? People aren’t bad. When did humans become a bad thing? Why is it that we have to, you know, stop people from getting pregnant?”

In 2002, on Donahue: “[C]ondoms will not protect you from AIDS. So to just throw a bunch of condoms over to Africa and say, ‘Here, we’re helping you with AIDS,’ is just going to further the spread of AIDS over there.”

In 1995, in The Washington Times: “We’re doing a great disservice to our young people because the only protection is abstinence, as condoms have been proven fallible. … The federal government should not be telling young people to use condoms. … It’s also an insult to teenagers, reducing them to the level of a dog that can’t control its hormones.”

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-09-18-christine-odonnell-sees-no-need-to-prevent-pregnancy-use-condoms/feed/0christine-odonnell-screenshot.pngOur planet’s population in miniature [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-09-11-planets-population-in-miniature-video-gink/
http://grist.org/article/2010-09-11-planets-population-in-miniature-video-gink/#respondSat, 11 Sep 2010 19:00:31 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-11-planets-population-in-miniature-video-gink/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

It sometimes gets lost in discussions of population that some of us have a lot more (and a lot more of an environmental impact) than others. This video from The Miniature Earth Project puts the situation into perspective:

Have a video on population or GINK thinking to recommend? Post a link in comments below.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-09-11-planets-population-in-miniature-video-gink/feed/0miniature-earth.jpgIs the U.S. the most overpopulated country on the planet? [VIDEO]http://grist.org/article/2010-08-21-is-the-u-s-the-most-overpopulated-country-on-the-planet-video/
http://grist.org/article/2010-08-21-is-the-u-s-the-most-overpopulated-country-on-the-planet-video/#respondSat, 21 Aug 2010 20:00:41 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-21-is-the-u-s-the-most-overpopulated-country-on-the-planet-video/]]>This is the latest in a series of Saturday GINK videos about population and reproduction (or a lack thereof).

Does it really make a difference to global sustainability if Americans have fewer children? Damn straight, says William Ryerson, founder and president of the Population Media Center and president of the Population Institute.

When it comes to controversial issues, population is in a class by itself.

Advocates and activists working to reduce global population growth and size are attacked by the Left for supposedly ignoring human-rights issues, glossing over Western overconsumption, or even seeking to reduce the number of people of color. They are attacked by the Right for supposedly favoring widespread abortion, promoting promiscuity via sex education, or wanting to harm economic growth. Others think the problem has been solved, or believe that the real problem is that we have a shortage of people (the so-called “birth dearth”). Still others think the population problem will solve itself, or that technological innovations will make our numbers irrelevant.

One thing is certain: The planet and its resources are finite, and it cannot support an infinite population of humans or any other species.

A second thing is also certain: The issue of population is too important to avoid just because it is controversial.

Ryerson goes on to claim it’s a myth that economic development is needed to slow population growth:

It turns out there is strong reason to believe that lower fertility rates lead to improved economic development, and there is comparatively little evidence that improved economic conditions lead to lower fertility rates.

He argues that lack of access to contraception is no longer the biggest barrier to lower fertility:

[L]arge-family norms and the cultural and informational barriers to use of contraception are now the major impediments to achieving replacement-level fertility.

Ultimately, he says:

We can begin solving the global population problem by providing family-planning information and services, role-modeling a small family as the norm, and elevating the status of women and girls.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-08-21-is-the-u-s-the-most-overpopulated-country-on-the-planet-video/feed/0usa-america-map-flag.jpgThe myth of the glamorous mom and hidden truth about nannieshttp://grist.org/article/2010-08-19-the-myth-of-the-glamorous-mom-and-hidden-truth-about-nannies/
http://grist.org/article/2010-08-19-the-myth-of-the-glamorous-mom-and-hidden-truth-about-nannies/#commentsFri, 20 Aug 2010 03:07:11 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-19-the-myth-of-the-glamorous-mom-and-hidden-truth-about-nannies/]]>“The media fetishizes celebrity motherhood to the extent that it’s practically become pornography,” writes Kiri Blakeley in Forbes. Trashy celeb mags have whole websitesections dedicated to famous moms and babies, as I noted in a live chat yesterday.

All this paints an outlandishly unrealistic portrait of motherhood, and adds to the pressure on all women to have kids. “Who could blame regular women for beating themselves up for not living up to this ideal?” asks Blakeley. “After all, it looks so easy!”

But, as Blakeley explains, it looks easy because celebs have a secret weapon that only money can buy: nannies. “[M]ost celebrities not only have one, but one for each child.” Not to mention “the housekeepers, the stylists, the trainers, the cooks, and the plethora of personal assistants.”

The nannies are kept well-hidden, lest they detract from the image of a hands-on, always-together, celeb mom who can do it all.

As Jennifer Senior wrote in New York magazine’s recent ode to miserable parents, nothing will make a parent feel more like a wretched failure than unrealistic expectations of parental perfection. And what could more fuel the fantasy of motherhood being glamorous and stress-free than celebrities with multiple children acting like they do it all themselves — and work and look amazing and have a sexy marriage?

And think of the carbon impact of the Jolie-Pitt family jet-setting around the globe with an army of 25 staff members in tow. That’s right, 25 — or so Andrew Morton claims in his tell-all on Angelina.

In our celeb-obsessed culture, it’s hard to penetrate the chatter about Siri and Violet and Maddox and their gorgeous moms to have an honest discussion about the real pluses and minuses of parenting, environmental or otherwise.

]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-08-19-the-myth-of-the-glamorous-mom-and-hidden-truth-about-nannies/feed/1Angelina-magazine_315X315.jpgPregnant Angelina Jolie on magazine coverThe green message in 'Eat, Pray, Love'http://grist.org/childfree/2010-08-18-green-message-eat-pray-love-julia-roberts-elizabeth-gilbert/
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-08-18-green-message-eat-pray-love-julia-roberts-elizabeth-gilbert/#commentsWed, 18 Aug 2010 18:00:44 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-18-green-message-eat-pray-love-julia-roberts-elizabeth-gilbert/]]>Julia Roberts as Elizabeth Gilbert“Having a baby is like getting a tattoo on your face. You really need to be certain it’s what you want before you commit.”

So says our protagonist’s best friend, a new mom, in an opening scene of the new movie Eat Pray Love. She goes on to confess that for years she kept a box of baby clothes under her bed, just waiting for her chance to become a mother.

Elizabeth Gilbert (as played by Julia Roberts) responds that she has a box just like that — but it’s stuffed with old issues of National Geographic and clippings from the New York Times travel section.

Gilbert doesn’t opt against parenthood for environmental reasons — most childfree people don’t. But by raising the possibility that for some people life can be more fully lived and enjoyed without kids, she’s making a green value mainstream. Does it get more mainstream than 183 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and a strong opening weekend for a Julia Roberts chick flick?

Gilbert makes the case that choosing whether or not to parent should be a deliberate and much-considered endeavor. Well, in Gilbert’s world, every feeling and fleeting thought is obsessively catalogued and analyzed, but while this often comes across as narcissism, in this case, it’s pure and simple wisdom. If there’s any decision that should be exhaustively examined, it’s this one — whether or not to become a parent.

Elizabeth Gilbert as herselfIn Committed, she scrutinizes her own motives and emotions on the matter, and then quizzes virtually every woman she knows. One of Gilbert’s friends says her kids have been an avalanche of joy. Another says, “Just go for it. It’s not that hard.” A third confesses that she’s not sure her life was bettered by having kids. A fourth friend says she was surprised to find that child rearing could “simultaneously be so awful and so rewarding.” One older woman says simply, “I never had ’em, honey. And I never missed ’em.”

Even her mom — by Gilbert’s account, a stellar parent — admitted ambivalence. “I don’t regret anything I ever did for you kids,” she says. But she does wish she hadn’t had to give up her short-lived and much-loved career at Planned Parenthood. And, she admits, “the best part of my life began when you kids grew up and left the house.”

Gilbert takes all this in and ultimately reaches the conclusion that kids aren’t for her.

Unlike so many of my friends, I did not ache with longing whenever I saw an infant. … There was no imperative there, and I believe that child rearing must come with an imperative, must be driven by a sense of longing and even destiny, because it is such a massively important undertaking.

While this realization sets her first marriage on a course for failure, it lays the groundwork for her second, with an older man who has two adult kids and no interest in any more.

That relief — the great thrumming relief that we both felt when we discovered that neither one of us was going to coerce the other into parenthood — still sends a pleasant vibrating hum across our life together. … I had never once considered the possibility that I might be allowed to have a lifelong male companion without also being expected to have children.

Gilbert continues:

Being exempted from motherhood has allowed me to become exactly the person I believe I was meant to be: not merely a writer, not merely a traveler, but also — in a quite marvelous fashion — an aunt.

She goes on to explore the largely unacknowledged roles that childfree women — the “Auntie Brigade” — have long played in society.

There’s lots more where this came from (Gilbert is nothing if not verbose) in the “Marriage and Women” chapter of Committed.

In Eat, Pray, Love, published four years earlier, Gilbert is less clear in her thinking on the matter, but still she offers this wise nugget: “I won’t go forth and have children just in case I might regret missing it later in life; I don’t think this is a strong enough motivation to bring more babies onto the earth.”

That sentiment is carried through in the film, even if the exact words aren’t. So I hereby declare Eat Pray Love the second-greenest movie of the year, after Sex and the City 2 — even if Gilbert does salve a broken heart with a carbon-intensive year of globe-trotting.